Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nirsevimab and RSVpreF Vaccine Prevention Strategies for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease in infants: A Canadian Immunisation Research Network (CIRN) Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The cost-effectiveness of immunisation strategies with a long-acting monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) and/or a protein-based maternal vaccine (RSVpreF) for protecting infants from Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-associated illness has not been previously determined for Canada. We estimated the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of nirsevimab for immunising the entire birth cohort regardless of gestational age or other risk factors. Additionally, we evaluated a combined strategy of year-round vaccination of pregnant women with RSVpreF and immunisation of high-risk infants with nirsevimab during RSV season. Methods We developed a discrete-event simulation model, parameterized with the data on RSV incidence, outpatient care, hospitalisations, and deaths. Intervention scenarios targeting twelve monthly birth cohorts and pregnant women were evaluated over a time horizon of one year. Taking into account the costs associated with RSV-related outcomes, we calculated the net monetary benefit using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Further, we determined the range of price-per-dose (PPD) for nirsevimab and RSVpreF within which the program was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives. Findings Using a willingness-to-pay of CAD$50,000 per QALY gained, we found that immunising the entire birth cohort with nirsevimab would be cost-effective from a societal perspective for a PPD of up to $290, with an annual budget impact of $83,978 for 1,113 infants per 100,000 population. An alternative, combined strategy of vaccinating pregnant women and immunising only high-risk infants would lead to a lower budget impact of $49,473 per 100,000 population with a PPD of $290 and $195 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively. This combined strategy would reduce infant mortality by 76% to 85%, comparable to 78% reduction achieved through a nirsevimab-only program for immunising the entire birth cohort. PPD for cost-effective programs with nirsevimab was sensitive to the target population among infants. Interpretation Passive immunisation of infants under 6 months of age with nirsevimab and vaccination of pregnant women with RSVpreF could be a cost-effective strategy for protecting infants during their first RSV season. Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Immunisation Research Network (CIRN) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Seyed M. Moghadas acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (MfPH and Discovery grants). Alison P. Galvani acknowledges support from the The Notsew Orm Sands Foundation. Research in context Evidence before this study Prevention of RSV disease in infants under 1 year of age has relied on palivizumab, a short-acting monoclonal antibody, administered monthly to high-risk infants during the period in which RSV is circulating in annual epidemics. New preventive measures including nirsevimab (a long-acting monoclonal antibody for immunising infants) and RSVpreF (a protein-based vaccine for immunising pregnant women) have been developed to reduce the risk of severe RSV illness in the first six months of life. However, no prior study has evaluated cost-effectiveness of these interventions in Canada with recently available efficacy estimates from randomised controlled clinical trials. Added value of this study Using a discrete-event simulation model, we found that immunising the entire birth cohort with nirsevimab would be cost-effective from a societal perspective for a price per dose of up to $290. Year-round vaccination of pregnant women with RSVpreF, followed by immunising infants at high-risk of severe RSV disease with nirsevimab as a combined strategy required a lower budget impact compared to the nirsevimab-only program for the entire birth cohort during the RSV season, while averting similar RSV-related infant mortality. Implications of all the available evidence Prevention strategies against RSV disease in infants using nirsevimab and RSVpreF vaccine could be cost-effective. A combined strategy of these interventions could reduce the budget impact to the healthcare system.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».